April 14, 2021

     A tort is defined as “a wrong or injury to another” (Kubasek et al., 2020) and “a violation of civil law that causes harm or injury to a person…and an associated legal liability on the part of the person who commits a tortious act” (Lumen Learning, 2012). Tort law exists “to provide compensation for injured parties, … [to maintain] order [by discouraging] private retaliation by injured parties, [and] to satisfy our collective sense of right and wrong by providing that someone who creates harm should make things right by compensating those harmed” (Kubasek et al., 2020). Tort law affects business practices positively as it encourages businesses to make sure their products, services, and procedures are safe for customers and employees to avoid being sued. It also prevents businesses from intentionally harming a competitor’s business, as seen in the case opener in chapter 8 of Dynamic Business Law.

      In the case of Jasmine and her landlord Lou, there has been negligence from her landlord and her neighbor, Dave. “Negligent torts occur when the defendant acts in a way that subjects other people to an unreasonable risk of harm” (Kubasek et al., 2020). Lou, of all, could have prevented Jasmine’s emotional distress, loss of clients, and heart attack. Jasmine can sue him for failing his duty to provide her with a habitable, safe environment and fail to do his duty of quiet enjoyment. There is also direct causation between her heart attack, emotional distress, loss of clients, and Lou’s negligence.

      She may also sue Dave for negligence as well. In the reasonable person standard, Dave, as a neighbor, could have furnished better containment for his livestock to let Jasmine have her peace. A snake that belongs to Dave escaped from his negligence and caused Jasmine to have a heart attack. There had been a breach of duty in this sense.

      In both cases, Jasmine may receive compensatory damages, “equivalent to all losses caused by the tort, including compensation for pain and suffering” (Kubasek et al., 2020)

Sunshine Yoga can sue The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou for negligence, and the following concepts in tort law may help her case:

• Negligence per se. Lou and Dave have “violated a safety statute, regulation, or municipal ordinance” (Justia Law, 2018a). The specific law Lou and Dave have violated is the Pet Shop/Pet Dealer Model Law’s regulation section F, which defines the housing conditions pets should have (Animal Law Resource Center, 2014). Both Lou and Dave have shared responsibility in following this regulation but have failed to do so, causing damages to Jasmine.
• Theory of Strict Liability. Strict liability “imposes legal responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person who was found strictly liable did not act with fault or negligence… the theory of strict liability is used in connection with pets that bite or attack. Animals do not have a conscience, and those who choose to keep them as pets have a duty to restrain them to avoid harm” (Justia Law, 2018b). Even though there was no bite or attack, Jasmine suffered a heart attack because of an escaped snake from Dave’s shop. Additionally, Dave knew that this snake was dangerous but have not done correctly controlled its’ containment.

References

Justia Law. (2018a, April 25). Negligence Per Se. Justia. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/negligence-per-se/

Justia Law. (2018b, April 25). Strict Liability. Justia. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/strict-liability/

Kubasek, N. K., M Neil Browne, Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic business law. Mcgraw-Hill Education. https://newconnect.mheducation.com/

Lumen Learning. (2012). Reading: Torts | Business Law. Lumenlearning.com. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/masterybusinesslaw/chapter/torts/